Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

[Enrico Marocco <[e-mail]>]

On 3/16/13 4:08 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> --Decide on H.261: This might be old tech, but browsers might be
>> able to use H.261 without paying any royalties and without
>> transcoding. The codec can be used at 352x288 resolution from
>> 64Kbit/s to 2Mbit/s Remember this is just a fallback for
>> interoperability. Browsers will still implement VP8 and/or H.264.
>> ... Atleast there is video instead of no Video. Any opinions?
>
> I agree this would be better than nothing, as mentioned on the thread
> titled "Video Codec MTI & User Experience == 1". I also asked a few
> vendors after this week's meetings whether their existing devices
> support H.261, but they didn't know.  If most existing video devices
> do, then having H.261 as the MTI would also facilitate interop with
> legacy equipment.  I.e., it would follow the same rationale for why
> we chose G.711 as one of the MTI audio codecs.

Not only that. It would also foster competition and innovation. Crappy 
quality when negotiation falls back on H.261 will be a big incentive for 
the communicating parties to switch to a common browser. In the end the 
fluctuations in browser market share will take care themselves to set 
the de-facto standard.

At this point crappy quality may be a feature rather than a bug..

Enrico